jupiviv wrote:The only way for God to create time would be for him to exist before the creation of time, which is impossible for obvious reasons.

You think I do not read what I say. So now you are just getting even by replying to what I wrote without responding to to the ideas I am expressing.

You entirely missed the point. Time is a dimension exactly like space, and as tied to it as up and down is tied to back and forth, as well as to left and right. If space itself - obviously including all matter therein - were once condensed to a pinpoint size, time would only exist inside this pinpoint.

If you draw a line on a plane, and movement is possible only along this line, then you have a two-dimensional world, the line being the spatial dimension, and time, which makes motion possible or meaningful. Yet this line is seen by a being not on it as existing embedded in a higher-dimensional space. A human would see it as embedded in the 4-D space time.

But what if 4-D space time is embedded in something higher-dimensional, like 23-space instead of 4-space (our own)?

Time as we know it - and you seem unable to imagine beyond - would only exist within the 4-space, and we would have 19 other dimensions left over.

What I said above is that if God is an entity of a higher dimensional environment, one of those dimensions may or may not correspond to the one we call time in our 4-D world. If he was alone, and is eternal, then the concept of time as we know it is meaningless - all things may be now in the 23-space. But if one is time even for a God who is Eternal with respect to his own time, then for him, there is a before the act of creation (divestiture) and after. For us, this time only comes into existence at this point. We are constrained to a subset of the Lord's dimensionality. What comes before creation would be like asking what lies ten meters north of the north pole, since north and south is constrained to 2-dimensions embedded in three (spatial) dimensions.

Look - I know this requires some imagination. You use the term "impossible for obvious reasons." I am extending what is obvious to show it is not logically impossible by any means. I will dig out references that put his concept in much more skillful terms than I seem able to do. Which references you would refuse to read, I am quite sure.

When you think about it, this 'god' who origines and origened this world and all possible worlds must be a really strange 'being'. To have somehow existed, in ways that can only be fantasized about, to create all manner of terrible and marvellous 'worlds' and play almost sadistically devilish games of revelation-obfuscation with a whole planet of simians who descended from a bizarre species of tree-climbing lemurs, who would set it up so that we suffer the blame and the shame for being fleshy creatures who reproduce not through, say, rites of beauty and 'holiness' and collective participation, but through flesh-penetration, grunting and secretion of strange goo with that whole area of our bodies designed.for.defecation and elimination, driving everything along with hormonal compounds when it might have been all the higher sentiments of the better possibilities of consciousness, but nooooo! you set it up so that it occurs in the dark and nehind closed doors, in sick flesh-lusts and weird.physical extrusion. I won't EVEN mention birth, much less death where you REALLY get freaky and morbid!

God! You wickedly cruel madman! You sick fuck! I am frankly tired of this game you are.playing with me and with all of us, and especially with these driven minds of GF forum! Really, at what point are.you going to stop these elaborate charades? Where is the door you are said to have programmed.in to the code of creation? The door that leads out of your cruel, violent pranksterism to the 'real world' of open horizons,.splendorous light, ever-increasing wonder, salvation, beauty?

Liberty wrote:1.But even if that Being is within the All, what is he was truly the creator of Earth, who created all lives out of nothingness with the power of his consciousness? 2. What is that Being truly has power over your destiny?3. What if that Being has infinite force that can destroy the total mass in the universe in an instant?

DQ wrote:It's irrelevant. While we might find this sort of scenario to be important from our perspective as egotistical beings on planet earth, it has no impact on the truth - namely, that a finite being, no matter how powerful, will always remain a finite being and inconsequential to the ALL.

But for the reasons I have given to jupi, it is possible to conceive of what came "before time," as it were. Time is but a single dimension, if that. Mathematically is equivalent to the spatial dimensions. Math, however, is Platonic, and unlike ourselves, timeless. Its level of Reality is different from our own.

If even thoughts are part of the All, then any Platonic entity must also be a part of the All. David, you said thoughts are things. As such, they must be caused. Is 1 therefore a thing? If so, what caused it? Is pi caused? How could it be - it was never invented, it was discovered. It is timeless - it exists in a timeless realm. Pi causes nothing else - the beings who are constrained to existing within time discovered it, and yes, their thoughts and calculations involving it cause other things to be discovered. But is discovering a thing the same as causing it? Come on, man. Think, will you? Of course not.

Liberty is lowering himself to your level and trying to poke you with a stick.

The Sufic Islam is outside the Islam of the Koran. I read a lot of Idries Shah many moons ago and was deeply affected - the Koran only more recently and was profoundly let down. Well, no more let down than when I hear a J.W. quoting as freely from the OT as from the NT. The Koran has its fierce beauty, but the OT is a quagmire of myths, much older, that survived many eons of translation and adulteration along with almost demonic misuse. The anal-retentive lineage of the Habiru from Abraham on is important why?

God is no respecter of persons. Or peoples.

You see, a more lucid approach to the fragmentation - and therefore irrelevance - of the world's organized religions, is to comprehend why they are large, organized, splinters, contradictory, and effete. It is because this world to the Lord is as new as this year. From the beginning, he has sent emissaries ("Messengers" in the Koran). Adam and Eve actually lived, Eden was in Mesopotamia, and this was some 35, 000 years ago, before the advent of writing, IOW, majestically prehistoric. And they were relative newcomers on the scene of the Lord's Emissaries, who have been here since before Man, the first human being born over a million years ago. Each time the Messengers were sent, they imparted the "Gospel." They depart - or are slain - and shards of this revelation make it into the oral tradition. And how reliable could that be, when the written tradition produces such contention?

TA wrote:When you think about it, this 'god' who origines and origened this world and all possible worlds must be a really strange 'being'

"Being" implies "existing within Time." If he invented Time, I use the term "entity" instead. As a footnote, the "Supreme Being" is not synonymous with this entity, but rather equates to the way his creatures of space and time regard him. The Supreme Being evolves. God does not.

To have somehow existed, in ways that can only be fantasized about, to create all manner of terrible and marvellous 'worlds' and play almost sadistically devilish games of revelation-obfuscation with a whole planet of simians who descended from a bizarre species of tree-climbing lemurs...

You know about the lemurs! Excellent! But "sadistic" and "devilish"? You are playing to the crowd, albeit facetiously.

...who would set it up so that we suffer the blame and the shame for being fleshy creatures who reproduce not through, say, rites of beauty and 'holiness' and collective participation, but through flesh-penetration, grunting and secretion of strange goo with that whole area of our bodies designed.for.defecation and elimination, driving everything along with hormonal compounds when it might have been all the higher sentiments of the better possibilities of consciousness.

You lucky dog! Um, er,... ass. Sometime in the future, that might very be the nature of reproduction. It is starting already. In vitro and all that. The fucking pain-in-the-ass kids, without the wonderful penetration of flesh! Without the exchange of goo! That it is relegated to the lower chakras ensures that it will get done, dear Ass. That is, until Universal health care evolves. But shame and blame? That isn't the Good Lord's doing. That's the family of the little nymph you have been boinking, their precious dreams being threatened because she has the hots for a donkey.

Really, at what point are.you going to stop these elaborate charades? Where is the door you are said to have programmed.in to the code of creation? The door that leads out of your cruel, violent pranksterism to the 'real world' of open horizons,.splendorous light, ever-increasing wonder, salvation, beauty?

I believe I have already addressed this, at what may be great peril to my soul. The door is there. Read my posts. Or PM me.

cousinbasil wrote:You think I do not read what I say. So now you are just getting even by replying to what I wrote without responding to to the ideas I am expressing.

I can't make sense of what you are saying, and as far as I can see it has nothing to do with what I am saying, so I'm simply repeating what I said hoping you will read it this time.

Time is a dimension exactly like space, and as tied to it as up and down is tied to back and forth, as well as to left and right. If space itself - obviously including all matter therein - were once condensed to a pinpoint size, time would only exist inside this pinpoint.

So time can increase or decrease in size? And what is the place outside the pinpoint of condensed space and time - an eternal blackness perhaps? Like I said, I can't make sense of what you are saying. I see a pattern in your arguments - you tend to use terms and definitions from specialised fields of mathematics and physics(quantum physics being your favourite, it appears) in discussions which have nothing to do with those fields, especially when it is an obviously irrational position.

This serves two purposes - it makes your position sound logical, and it helps you avoid what the other person is saying on the grounds that he doesn't read/understand what you are saying(since he may not know/understand the special terminology). The downside of course is that someone may point out that you are alternately using different definitions of the same words in the same context.

"I once knew a married man who went around saying he was a bachelor, because he hated his wife and wished he never married her. Therefore, married bachelors exist."

What I said above is that if God is an entity of a higher dimensional environment, one of those dimensions may or may not correspond to the one we call time in our 4-D world. If he was alone, and is eternal, then the concept of time as we know it is meaningless - all things may be now in the 23-space.

"May or may not", "if", "may" - plenty of speculation going on here. I'm not interested in speculation when I can be certain. Even if he is an entity with more dimensions than us, he would still be unable to create time, because creation itself occurs within time by definition.

But if one is time even for a God who is Eternal with respect to his own time, then for him, there is a before the act of creation (divestiture) and after.

You do realise you are not making any sense, right?

What comes before creation would be like asking what lies ten meters north of the north pole, since north and south is constrained to 2-dimensions embedded in three (spatial) dimensions.

No it wouldn't, because the north pole is an imaginary point that is defined as the maximum extent of north. The creation of time on the other hand is a self-contradictory idea because both creation and destruction are events that occur within time by definition.

Being...Entity...The term I am forced to employ is What-The F*$+*@#???

Just as we are engaging, in oh-so-human a manner, in fantastic speculations, of some God existing eternally and 'ouside' 'beyond', so it is possible to work the angle of captivity by this god within a cruel and malicious game. To have envisioned a world of green and red flesh engaged in an eternal eating-game and to have thrown us in...well, need I say more?

The sexual aspect I find quite peculiar. What if somewhere, somehow, there is a sphere where the beings there assemble in loving fraternity while listening to elevated, intelligent and 'spiritual, music, and in some rite perhaps not unlike Catholic mass, call down into manifestation the being from some other dimension who is destined to live among them, to be their off-spring, their evolution.

There are certain fundamental horrors of physical, biological life. I wonder if we'll ever reconcile ourselves with it

Why can you not assume the obvious? Time has an arrow. The spatial dimensions do not. Thousands of physical experiments show how time and space are intertwined, and both are measurable. Can we at least agree on that?

And what is the place outside the pinpoint of condensed space and time - an eternal blackness perhaps?

It is precisely equivalent to what lies ten meters north of the North Pole.

I see a pattern in your arguments - you tend to use terms and definitions from specialised fields of mathematics and physics(quantum physics being your favourite, it appears) in discussions which have nothing to do with those fields

At least you see something. But I see you disregard other people's investigations into the same things about which you write. On what grounds? Physics does not deal with causality? Are you fucking serious? The entire Western scientific tradition has nothing to do with reality. I am trying to discuss what is really out there. What are you talking about, then?

You do realise you are not making any sense, right?

Perhaps if you were more well-read, I would be making more sense? Has that occurred to you? Why don't you weight in on david's Space Goat? I suppose that makes sense to you?

May or may not", "if", "may" - plenty of speculation going on here. I'm not interested in speculation when I can be certain.

I see we have nothing further to discuss. That you are certain enough to forgo considering things, or learning about things, that you do not understand, makes me acutely uncomfortable.

If you are so certain, there is clearly no point in interacting with you on any level. I'm good with that.

Last edited by cousinbasil on Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alex wrote:The sexual aspect I find quite peculiar. What if somewhere, somehow, there is a sphere where the beings there assemble in loving fraternity while listening to elevated, intelligent and 'spiritual, music, and in some rite perhaps not unlike Catholic mass, call down into manifestation the being from some other dimension who is destined to live among them, to be their off-spring, their evolution.

There must be. Not sure I would want to live there. Didn't John Lennon write Imagine while fucking the shit out of Yoko...?

cousinbasil: David, your notion of causality is faulty at the core - you miss the essence of things by eternally returning to cause and effect as if running for cover. David Quinn: I'm not following you here. I agree that thoughts are caused and have effects, but I don't know how this connects to your last sentence there.

Well, the following Q&A illustrates what that sentence means:

cousinbasil wrote:Forget the uncaused causes for a second. What about causal chains that terminate? What about an effect that never becomes a cause of anything? If ideas are things as you say, then each thought must be both a cause and an effect. What effect does a man's dying thought have?

David wrote:Numerous ways. The temperature of the thought heating its immediate surroundings. The chemical interactions that produce the thought continuing to impact on other chemical interactions within the brain. The expression on the dying man's face caused by the thought making an impression on those who observe him. That this particular thought didn't mutate into a giant black hole and swallow the earth also has an effect.

First: there is no evidence that a conscious thought increases the physical temperature of anything, as compared to no thought in that same second or a different thought in that same second.

If it possesses energy it will affect temperature.

cousinbasil wrote: Second, the chemical interactions that supposedly produce the thought are not the thought itself - what they may cause was not the question.

Whether or not these chemical interactions are deemed to be part of the thought is a matter of definition. It depends on what we define a thought to be. You did say that a thought always has an associated mass.....

cousinbasil wrote: Third - the man dies in an alley and no one ever notices his final expression; the thought may not even have caused an expression if he was a stoic or Asian, and when he fell, he fell on his face which changed the expression anyway.

Okay, in those instances, his final thought might not have any impact on the consciousnesss of anyone else. There aren't any hard and fast rules about these matters. How the causal consequences of a final thought (or indeed any event) play out in a particular scenario is itself determined by causal conditions.

cousinbasil wrote: All I have to do is provide a plausible counter-example, because you make the fundamental error of believing that every thought must have an effect.

It cannot help but have effects. As soon as anything exists at all, it is impacting on the environment - in lots of different ways, to greater or lesser degree. In my previous post, I had listed but a few possible examples of this, a few out of countless other possibilities. Your strategy of setting up counter-examples for each one is futile and doesn't begin to touch the issue.

Look at it this way. A man has a final thought and then he dies. This thought either has an emotional element to it or it doesn't. Either way, his body will respond in some manner. His nervous system, his molecular chemistry, his hormones, his muscular contractions - all will be affected by this thought to some degree. Changes, however small, are made to the body by this final thought. And then, over time, these changes will have widening consequences. Two weeks down the track, a particular worm might live or die depending on what impact that final thought had on the body, which in turn might be the deciding factor on whether a young chick is to be discarded by its mother, and so on forever. Causality can't be stopped. You can stick your hands to your eyes and ears in an effort to block it out, but it never sleeps.

cousinbasil wrote: By running for cover, I meant things like your final black hole argument. I know it is compelling (to you), but why is that "space-goat" belief any more compelling than the belief in a loving God?

Because one is logically irrefutable and directs the mind to the heart of reality, while the other is illogical and superfluous.

cousinbasil wrote: Here again you fall back on one of these questionable, faith-based tenets of yours:

cousinbasil: What if the world were rife with uncaused causes, most of which go unnoticed because they have an ensuing effect, which then becomes cause for another effect, which vanishes without causing anything further. David : This is like asking how do we know the world isn't rife with married bachelors and four-sided triangles. We know they don't exist because their existence is logically impossible.

I had given the example of virtual particles, spontaneously appearing into and disappearing from the physical world. Any scientific explanation is quantum mechanical in nature, and therefore fundamentally non-deterministic. That is, there is no cause and effect; an invisible and otherwise undetectable underlying field is postulated,

So in other words, the underlying field is the cause of these particles?

I heard Richard Dawkins saying the other day that science now believes that the universe did come from nothing, but that this nothing is quite complex and actually a type of something.

It must be something in the laboratory water.

cousinbasil wrote: Is pi caused? How could it be - it was never invented, it was discovered. It is timeless - it exists in a timeless realm. Pi causes nothing else - the beings who are constrained to existing within time discovered it, and yes, their thoughts and calculations involving it cause other things to be discovered. But is discovering a thing the same as causing it?

Well, let's use the example of pi to explore this issue. The numerical value of pi expresses the logical relationship between the circumference and diameter of a circle. Unlike triangles and rectangles, the proportions of a circle never change. You can get larger or smaller circles, but not different types of circles. As a result, the value of pi remains constant.

Outside the abstracting mind, there are no circles in Nature. They literally don't exist at all until a mind becomes evolved enough to conceive of them. So circles and pi are purely abstract entities. They each have distinct properties, but only within the world of abstraction. Even so, we can treat them as entities that are "out there" to be discovered. They are not unlike, say, bronze or steel which also didn't exist until humans came along. In each case, they all have their particular properties, but they don't come into existence without human input.

So to answer your question: pi is something that is discovered within the abstract realm (albeit with creative help from the mind); it has certain causes (such as the properties of a circle and the evolution of the human race), and it produces effects (such as the development of mathematics and its subsequent technologies).

David Quinn wrote:Consciousness is still consciousness, regardless of who or what possesses it.

If you are just a program, can your consciousness comparable to the programmer. A game character and his designer.

He could conceiveably have a different form of consciousness - have different senses, have the ability to think faster, have more intuitive insight, experience things more vividly, etc. But the essential characteristic of consciousness - that of being aware of what is before us and blocking everything else out - would be the same.

Liberty Sea wrote:

David Quinn wrote:An omniscient being could conceivably expand a strawberry to encompass everything there is, but he could only do so by destroying the strawberry's identity.

I don't think consciousness's identity work like physical object's identity.

It is exactly the same. We are able to distinguish between consciousness and strawberries because they each have their unique characteristics and their own unique identity. Identity is not a physical property. It is a property that all things partake in, physical or otherwise.

Even the ALL has its own identity. Its identity is that of not being a thing. It is formless, existenceless, ever-present, all-embracing, it has neither size nor shape. Being formless, it doesn't have the form of anything at all, not even the form of consciousness (or unconsciousness). It is no more possible for the ALL to be consciousness than it is to be a strawberry.

Liberty Sea wrote:

David Quinn wrote:It doesn't matter what the teenager can offer me. It will never change the fact that he is an insignificant being within the endlessness of the ALL.

Does this mean you won't listen to him even if he is the supreme being that created all mass and could as well put you to eternal damnation in hell?

It's funny how theism inevitably slides into the realm of thuggery and torture. He can torture me if he wants, but it still won't change the truth of his own status.

A more interesting and immediate perspective is that 'he' is torturing you right now (that is to say all of us) and you-we just don't realize why. From one perspective we have gotten ourselves into a terrible jam: we have fallen into the depth of a dangerous entanglement in materialism that at any moment could turn even more nasty, could swollow use more deeply even. The torture and 'thuggery' is birth and death and all this causal madness. From one perspective, the rationalist 'gñani' strategy of dealing with the existential problem, the submersion in the "ocean of materialism', is not a real but a temporary solution: an imagined solution. But if there is just an imagined solution, and not a 'real' one, one might indeed still be well within the material entanglement and thus in some level of 'hell', hence 'tortured'. In all this, if.one has not 'surrendered' to the author of all possible worlds (whatever that might mean), and one is still resisting with elaborate mental strategies one mistakes for 'liberation', one's endeavors and one's preaching ('the blind leading the.blind into a pit') may altogether amount to a form of 'torture'. True, we all have to examine our location and conclude just what we are doing to maintain our position in this level of 'hell'

jupivix wrote:He already is everything, so he can't create any more things.

You are sticking to the Law of conservation of matter and energy. But God is defined to be beyond this law. By 'create', I suppose you mean, 'rearrange matter and energy to form a new structure of things', but God is defined to be able to materialize physical objects out of 'thin air'. Magical, but logic is not enough to disprove that ability.

David Quinn wrote:He could conceiveably have a different form of consciousness - have different senses, have the ability to think faster, have more intuitive insight, experience things more vividly, etc. But the essential characteristic of consciousness - that of being aware of what is before us and blocking everything else out - would be the same.

-

God's consciousness is described to be able to perceive everything, like the eye that could see itself. And he perceives time spatially, which means, he see the past, the present and the future simultaneously like different frames of a movie placed together. For this reason God's consciousness is beyond time. Our cannot conceive his.

If a geometric point had consciousness, it could not conceive a line. If a one-dimensional straight line had consciousness, it could not conceive a plane. And if a plane had consciousness it could not conceive a three-dimensional solid object. We are three-dimensional beings, can we conceive how a 4-dimensional being who exist in a higher dimension would think? Can we see two circles in a table and guess that they are the marks of two fingers of a human being? Any line consist of infinite points in a way that a point cannot conceive, any plane consists of infinite lines in a way that a line cannot conceive and any solid consists of infinite planes in a way that a plane cannot conceive. A higher dimension object would consist of infinite three-dimensional objects in a way that a three-dimensional being cannot conceive. In this dimension the past, the present and the future of the whole universe are displayed simultaneously, all three-dimensional images of the universe at all point in time are perfectly visible to the eye of God like a jewel of infinite facets. Among the modern physics community, this concept is not new.

Any potion of the All might just be as infinite as the All. For example, the totality of Odd numbers is as infinite as the totality of Natural numbers, which is just as infinite as the totality of Real numbers. A popular view in mysticism is that: In God's mind, any potion of the All contain all that is not it within itself, and A is both A and not A. It is not illogical, just a higher logical that is seemingly illogical from our lower logic's point of view.

David Quinn wrote:It is exactly the same. We are able to distinguish between consciousness and strawberries because they each have their unique characteristics and their own unique identity. Identity is not a physical property. It is a property that all things partake in, physical or otherwise.

If a strawberry is all that is, it won't have the outer shape of a strawberry, but it atomic structure, i.e. inner structure remain the same. The chemical process within it would be pretty much the same.You reasoned in your book that even a mere sphere can be said to be made of its two halves. But it can only be 'said', an abstract idea. What if in reality the sphere cannot be divided by any force and is an indivisible whole? If we characterize a thing by appearance, then it depend on external things. But if we characterize them by their inner substance, then even if an object is all there is, it would still keep it identity.

The process of God's consciousness is defined to have no form or an outer appearance, and it is not composed of part, it is indivisible.

David Quinn wrote:It's funny how theism inevitably slides into the realm of thuggery and torture. He can torture me if he wants, but it still won't change the truth of his own status.

That is just a scenario I brought up not to miss anything, not an inevitability.You seem to think that enlightenment is equal to immortality. But it is just a metaphorical immortality. From a materialistic point of view, your consciousness arose when the atoms in your brain are put together in right positions, when then these atom decompose, or fall apart from their positions your consciousness would disappear. In a sense you are your consciousness and when your consciousness no longer work, you die. Any mortal consciousness that is born is already old enough to die. So the goal of ephemeral consciousness is to die, or to achieve immortality? You seem to think your metaphorical immortality is superior to literal immortality, that is, ever-lasting consciousness.Instead of God and man, we can examine our situation as the mortals and the immortals. What do you choose?

Another theory of God is that He is the totality of 'souls', namely the Oversoul, formless and massless, to which your soul will return and with which your would will reunite after your body decomposed. And Hell implies the separation from the Oversoul.

And if the universe, namely the total mass, is just like a drop of water amidst the immeasurable endless ocean that is God, then even if the All consists only of God and the universe, would you say God is insignificant to the endlessness of the All?

Kunga wrote:if there was a creator God, I would hope he has the intelligence and mercy to understand why we don't believe in him....

Or rather, do not know how to believe in 'the'. In that sense we are lost in a world that no longer know how to interpret. But also from another perspective, we have not ever separate 'the' and our suffering is ilusiorio. 'The' is still the same and nothing has changed. In essence the problem is ours! That is: Learn how to interpret. That's why I have said several times: we have to stop, we must provide a statement of completion of our 'doom' and basically ask for help. And help comes ... we can not even believe or anticipate: a matter of a long process of changing our relationship with one hundred percent of material existence. Requires an embarrassing paciencia.All jest?

I can't comprehend if there is a God , how he could allow the inexplicable attrocities to occur...that is what turned me away from him.No loving God could allow such horrors to happen to his children....as we love our children and would want to protect them. That, more than anything, has saddly made me lose faith in God....

What causes everything?It causes itself, it is uncaused, I do not understand everything?

A thing is part of Everything, therefore Everything has parts (all parts).

So what causes all parts?*A cause is a part of Everything, that would be asking if a part is all parts, or if Everything is a thing. Which is a contradiction.*(Everything is not a thing. It's Nothing.)

And what causes a thing? Everything else.

What causes everything else? A thing (the everything else of everything else).

If a thing is caused by everything else which is caused by a thing, a thing is not caused by everything else, but by everything else and itself.

A thing and everything else is Everything.Therefore what causes a thing is not everything else but Everything (all parts).*But a cause is part of Everything, and that would be saying that a part is all parts, or that Everything is a thing. Which is a contradiction.*

That's what being said, that something causes Nothing and that Nothing causes something. That contradictions are true. (something is not nothing, nothing is not something)

Someone that knows how to make contradictions true can create and destroy at will, or grant eternal life. The power of making contradictions true is itself a contradiction, but one that is taken as evidence of the status of a deity in reality by believers and one that circulary proves itself. (if you are wrong you are right)You cannot grant the ability of making contradictions true (since it is itself a contradiction) therefore it requires belief by necessity. Only you can contradict yourself and no one else, in order to maintain your ability of contradiction and therefore ensuring wealth accumulation (and/by gathering believers). <--probably circulary proving itself.

jupiviv wrote:He already is everything, so he can't create any more things.

You are sticking to the Law of conservation of matter and energy.

No, I am sticking to simple logic. If you can't see the contradiction in saying that a God who is the Totality can create something else, or have any properties whatsoever, then I can't help you. Likewise if you don't see the contradiction in saying that something can be created out of thin air.

Magical, but logic is not enough to disprove that ability.

Logic is enough to disprove it, by definition, unless you happen to be insane.